RECENT DEBATE OVER ARCHAEOPTERYX

Venus E. ClausenGeoscience Research Institute

Since its discovery over a century ago, Archaeopteryx has
been a subject of much controversy. Because it exhibits both avian and reptilian
characteristics, Archaeopteryx is usually considered an intermediate form, an
important example of a missing link.
In 1983 the authenticity of Archaeopteryx's plumage was
questioned (Trop 1983). More recently (March-June 1985), the British Journal of
Photography (BJP) published a series of four articles which resumed the challenge
that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (Watkins et al. 1985a,b,c; Hoyle et al. 1985).
Because of the prominence of some of the authors (e.g., Sir Fred Hoyle, a well-known
astrophysicist), this accusation received much attention.Archaeopteryx, the earliest fossil bird, is represented by six
fossils  five skeletons and one feather (see Table 1). All were excavated from the
Solnhofen limestone (Upper Jurassic) in the vicinity of Eichstatt, Germany. The first
skeleton (holotype of Archaeopteryx) was purchased in 1862 by the British Museum
(Natural History) (BMNH) and is now known as the London specimen (Figure
1). The second skeleton, preserved in natural pose with extended wings, was acquired
by the Humboldt Museum in 1881 and is designated as the Berlin specimen. Both skeletons
demonstrate indisputable feather impressions of tail and wing plumage. Due to poor feather
imprints, the other skeletons were initially unrecognized, and two were misidentified (see
Table 1).

TABLE 1
Fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx

Specimen

Date

Determined by

Feather Impressions

Notes

Single feather

1861

H. von Meyer

Good

*Skeletons:

London

1861

H. von Meyer

Good

Complete skeleton

Berlin

1877

H. von Meyer

Good

Complete skeleton

Maxburg

1956

K. Fesefeldt

Poor

Poorly articulated and badly decomposed; Currently in private
collection

Teyler

1970

J. H. Ostrom

Poor

Found in 1855 and described as a pterosaur by H. von Meyer in
1857

Eichstatt

1973

F. X. Mayr

Poor

Misidentified in 1951 as Compsognathus

*The specimen is named after the museum or the location of the museum in which
it is displayed.

Because of the significance and transitional position of Archaeopteryx,
the London specimen is probably the most valuable fossil (Charig 1979). Although the Archaeopteryx
skeleton closely resembles that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus
(Ostrom 1979, Padian 1985), its phylogeny and taxonomic status remain unclear. Padian
(1985) argues that the only new avian characteristic of Archaeopteryx is
its flight feathers, which are comparable to those of modern flying birds (Feduccia and
Tordoff 1979), and that all the skeletal characteristics of Archaeopteryx,
including the fused clavicles (furcula), were already present in coelurosaurian dinosaurs.
At the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference held in Eichstatt, the
consensus was that Archaeopteryx was a "bird," but not necessarily the
ancestor of modern birds (Dodson 1985, Howgate 1985a).
The discovery of Archaeopteryx coincided with a period of
debate triggered by Darwin's recently published The Origin of Species. The
appearance of Archaeopteryx rendered support for the arguments of the Darwinian
evolutionary theory. Two prominent personalities involved in the controversy were Thomas
H. Huxley, Darwin's champion defender, and Sir Richard Owen, an anti-evolutionist and
advocate of the church. As superintendent of the British Museum, Owen was instrumental in
obtaining the London Archaeopteryx (de Beer 1954, Feduccia 1980).
To test their hypothesis that Archaeopteryx had fraudulent
feathers, Watkins et al. (1985a,b,c) and Hoyle et al. (1985), photographed the London
specimen. Photographs of feather impressions of the fossil on both the main slab and
counterslab were compared. As summarized in Table 2 (tail and right wing) the two slabs do
not appear to match (or be "mirror images"). Furthermore, a comparison of the
present specimen with an 1863 drawing suggests an alteration has been made to the left
wing of the specimen (Table 2). In 1863, the main slab and the counterslab could not have
fitted together in this region.

TABLE 2
Plumage of the London Archaeopteryx

Feather Impressions

Main Slab

Counterslab

Tail

Depressed by 2mm below surrounding rock

No corresponding elevation

Right wing

Many detailed vanes

Vanes demonstrating double-strike phenomenon

No corresponding depression

Vanes without details

Small elevated region ("chewing gum" blob)

Left wing

Excavations at upper left boundary since 1863

Elevated area of the wing now fits main slab depression

Watkins, Hoyle and their collaborators concluded that the skeletal
material of Archaeopteryx is authentic, probably from a flying reptile, but that
the feathers were artificially imprinted on the fossil. They suggested the following
procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around
the tail and "wing" (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of
cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas,
and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material
(referred to as "chewing gum" blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock
were obvious  the slabs were scraped, brushed and chipped. However, an oversight
remained in the cleaning process: one "chewing gum" blob and fragments of others
were left behind.
On March 31, Williams (1985) reported a proposal by the BMNH to
investigate the possibility of a cement layer on the fossil. Their studies would involve:
1) removal of material from the edge of the fossil for microscopic sedimentation analysis
to determine particle size differences between the surface and underlying areas, and 2)
examination of the contact zone between surface and underlying material, utilizing
electron microprobe analysis to compare the spectra emitted by the material. Further
proposals to examine the authenticity of Archaeopteryx were submitted two weeks
later by the editor of BJP (Vol. 132, p. 375). These included: 1) direct physical testing
of a small feathered region found on the counterslab, 2) carbon-14 dating of a sample of
the "chewing gum" blob, and 3) spectrophotometry to analyze the blob for foreign
elements at an unbiased laboratory. BJP offered to serve as a neutral observer.
In June, Hoyle et al. (1985) announced that BMNH experiments had been
conducted, that the BMNH had determined the London Archaeopteryx to be authentic,
and that the fossil was no longer accessible. Unable to test the authenticity of the
plumage through direct physical examination of the fossil, Hoyle et al. (1985) explored
various events induced by Darwin's introduction of the theory of evolution and the
discovery of Archaeopteryx in the fossil record. They speculated that these
incidents which hinted of conspiracy would appear inexplicable if the Archaeopteryx
fossil were genuine, but logical if the fossil were fraudulent.
Without supporting references, Hoyle et al. (1985) asserted that from
he early eighteenth century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil
forgeries and that genuine fossils, altered to form monsters, were sold to museums. After
the publication of The Origin of Species, Huxley is said to have predicted the
appearance of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Hoyle et al. suggested that this
prediction initiated a search for such forms. It also prompted additional fossil
forgeries.
Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens
demonstrate undeniable feather impressions (see Table 1). Curiously, all three were linked
with Hermann von Meyer, who described them within a period of less than two decades. His
associates, the Haberlein family, acquired the two best skeletons (with good feather
impressions) and sold them at exorbitant prices. Hoyle et al. postulated that Meyer and
the Haberleins participated in forging the Archaeopteryx fossils and that Meyer
was motivated by desire for distinction whereas the Haberleins were motivated by desire
for wealth.
Although Richard Owen, the director of the British Museum, was an
opponent of Darwin and Huxley, he expended almost two years of museum funds to acquire the
controversial Archaeopteryx. Hoyle et al. proposed that Owen desired to set a
trap for his antagonists with a fraudulent fossil.
On the other hand, if Archaeopteryx was a major cornerstone of
Darwinian evolution, why was it mentioned only briefly in later editions of The Origin
of Species? Hoyle et al. suggested that Darwin did not believe Archaeopteryx
to be a true fossil.
In a presidential address to the Geological Society in 1870, Huxley
spoke on "Paleontology and the Doctrine of Evolution" without mentioning Archaeopteryx.
Hoyle et al. again supposed that Huxley was silent because he knew about the Archaeopteryx
fraud.
In the 1860 debate between the church and Huxley, Owen supported Bishop
Samuel Wilberforce who lost the debate. The following conjectures from Hoyle et al. were:
1) Owen, filled with spite and paranoia, decided to snare both Darwin and Huxley by Archaeopteryx;
2) Archaeopteryx was a mockery representing an intermediate life form and was
compatible to Darwin and Huxley's fancy and theory; 3) Huxley and Darwin, refusing to be
trapped, remained silent to save their reputations; 4) Owen maintained his silence because
he would have lost his respectability in exposing he fraud, especially since he had
purchased the Archaeopteryx fossil.
The BJP papers evoked responses of outrage in defense of Archaeopteryx
(Vines 1985, Howgate 1985b). The forgery charge, provoking a debate between physicists and
paleontologists and perhaps an additional controversy between evolutionists and
creationists, was emphatically denounced. Having suffered a loss of integrity from the
Piltdown Man hoax, BMNH scientists could not ignore the charge (Broad 1985, Nield 1985).
As a gesture of cooperation, it was suggested that museum paleontologists invite Hoyle and
his colleagues to select the test sites (Williams 1985).
Siegfried Rietschel (1985), a taphonomist, also responded to the BJP
forgery challenge. He stated that each of the known Archaeopteryx specimens
demonstrates outlines of feathers, and that the Maxburg specimen has definite feather
structures, complete with rachis and barbs. Rietschel indicated that the feather
structures, regarded by BJP authors as feather impressions, are technically casts of
feathers and are almost impossible to reproduce artificially.
Recently, Charig et al. (1986) reported BMNH findings on their study of
the holotype of Archaeopteryx. A vertical section through the main slab of the
fossils reveals no discontinuity between the true limestone and the "supposed layer
of cement" which overlies it. In addition, there is no discontinuity around the
perimeter of the "cement" (outer layer), and there is a complete absence of air
bubbles between the outer layer and the limestone. "Chewing gum" blobs are
considered to be natural irregularities of the surface of the limestone, because an
organic adhesive substance (such as gum arabic, etc.) would have deteriorated with the
passage of time. Ultimately, conclusive evidence of authenticity on the plumage of Archaeopteryx
is manifested by matching hairline cracks and dendrites on the feathered regions on both
slabs of the fossil (see Figure 1).
Scientific puzzles are not easily deciphered and the argument over Archaeopteryx
is yet to be concluded. So the debate continues, and perhaps this intriguing case will
never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

FIGURE 1. Holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica
(London specimen), preserved in dorsal position. Dendrites are the dark short branching
fine lines seen near the top and along the main crack. Main slab (left
top). Counterslab (right bottom). Reproduced by permission of the British
Museum (Natural History).